Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology 1
Transcript of Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology 1
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
IJES
UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA
International Journal of
English Studies www.um.es/ijes
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology1
GITTE KRISTIANSEN* Universidad Complutense de Madrid
ABSTRACT The usage-based conception of language is a major tenet in Cognitive Linguistics, but cognitive phonology has not yet been developed sufficiently in this direction. Often, phonemic analysis is carried out at the high level of abstraction of `a language´, disregarding rich patterns of language-internal variation. This paper first argues that cognitive phonology must aim at a higher degree of descriptive refinement, especially in the direction of social variation. Then it goes on to examine the implications of a usage-based and multi-faceted model for a theoretical discussion of the phoneme as a prototype category.
KEYWORDS: usage-based cognitive phonology, lectal variation, distributed cognition, receptive and active competence, language acquisition, models of phonemic representation
* Address for correspondence: Gitte Kristiansen. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Facultad de Filología. Departamento de Filología Inglesa I. Lengua y Lingüística. 28040 Madrid. Phone: +34913945392. Fax: +34 913945478. e-mail: [email protected]
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
108
I. ON THE NECESSITY OF A USAGE-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR COGNITIVE PHONOLOGY
A recent Google search on `accent reduction´ (January 7, 2007) gave 2.040.000 results. Most of
the first 400 results corresponded to courses offered by private companies or public institutions
(universities included) aiming at a reduction of foreign accents. However, a surprisingly high
number also had as their target the reduction of native accents. In such cases, the course
descriptions often explain in quite straightforward terms that having a regional accent can `keep
you from being promoted´ or `hamper you professionally and socially´. It is easy to find
companies that specialize in `American Regional Dialect Reduction´ and offer courses or
products which teach the unfortunate speakers with regionalisms such as `American South and
Texas´, `Mid-West farm Belt´, `American Urban and Rural Black´ or even `New York City and
North Jersey´ how to `speak without an accent´. It has thus not gone unnoticed that there is
market for teaching people how to speak with socially prestigious accents. The unspoken
assumption is that accents are socially diagnostic: humans have `passive´ competence of lectal
varieties (cf. Kristiansen, 2003) in the sense that we possess the ability to process clusters of
linguistics cues which quickly and efficiently signal social and regional origin (hearer categorizes
speaker lectally and socially) and concomitantly invoke the corresponding social stereotypes
(hearer characterizes speaker socially and geographically).
One of the most important cues to correct dialect identification (perhaps even the most
significant one: cf. Purnell et al., 1999; van Bezooijen & Gooskens, 1999) is allophonic variation.
However, while the disciplines of Sociolinguistics and Social Psychology of Language have
explored the relationship between linguistic variants and social meaning for more than four
decades now, social and regional variation has strangely enough been relegated to a secondary
position in cognitive phonology. Yet, there are good reasons for investigating these areas in more
depth within a Cognitive Linguistics framework. For a start, it would seem more than just
pertinent, the emphasis on meaning-making processes provided, to investigate not only the
mechanisms by means of which allophonic variation evokes social meaning, but also the various
options language users employ once the link between linguistic form and social domain has been
established (cf. Kristiansen forthcoming a). Further, an analysis of linguistic variants in actual
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
109
usage within social and linguistic dimensions which taxonomically speaking are more specific
than the large-scale and abstract category of `a language´ is only in line with the fundamental
claim that Cognitive Linguistics is a usage-based perspective. As Langacker, the scholar who
coined the term, once phrased it:
In a usage-based model, substantial importance is given to the actual use of the linguistic system and a speaker’s knowledge of this use; […] It is a non-reductive approach to linguistic structure that employs fully articulated schematic networks and emphasizes the importance of low-level schemas (Langacker, 1999: 91).
In turn, Geeraerts (2001, 2005; Geeraerts et al., 1994) has repeatedly drawn attention towards the
logical entailment of such a position: we can only take the claim that Cognitive Linguistics is a
usage-based approach seriously if the kind of language that we analyze is real language, language
as it is actually used by real speakers in real situations. Obviously, an analysis which in a natural
way incorporates social factors and other types of language-internal dimensions not only provides
us with a far more realistic picture, but also widens the gap with respect to disciplines according
to which it is still acceptable, and possible, to analyze languages in terms of idealized speakers
and homogeneous speech communities.2 It naturally follows that a fine-grained map of
allophonic variation within a given speech community cannot ignore social variation of the type
just described.3 Lectal variation will naturally form part of any description, or model, which
purports to provide a realistic picture of phonetic variation and phonemic categorization.
However, the implications are not only descriptive, but also theoretical. From a diachronic
perspective, knowledge about the social significance of linguistic variants may well turn out to
have an influence on active competence, and accordingly on the nature of the variants in actual
usage – both quantitatively and qualitatively - in a given language at a given historical time. A
theory of language that intends to describe and explain the dynamics of language change in
adequate ways cannot afford to ignore the (synchronic) mechanisms of actual language usage.
Obviously, to obtain a picture which allows us to discuss the nature and evolution of not only
phoneme categories but also phoneme inventories, the very first step is to aim at a high level of
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
110
descriptive accuracy. Usage-based models, then, take the data as they actually appear and set up
theories which conform to the facts.
As far as the link between usage and language acquisition is concerned, Taylor (2002: 27)
summarizes the relationship in the following way:
It is assumed that the input to language acquisition are encounters with actual linguistic expressions, fully specified in their phonological, semantic, and symbolic aspects. Knowledge of a language is based in knowledge of actual usage and of generalizations made over usage events. Language acquisition is therefore a bottom-up process, driven by linguistic experience.
Though I shall also touch on acquisition in what follows, my main concern will be the descriptive
and theoretical implications of zooming in on real usage in a more persistent way.
For the sake of highlighting the importance of social variation, I have started out with this
particular aspect, but a usage-based model is obviously not one-dimensional. In fact, if Cognitive
Linguistics shares an interest in low-level schemas situated at the level of parole with
Sociolinguistics, with Functionalism it shares, amongst many other aspects (cf. Nuyts, 2005) the
view that meaning cannot be studied in isolation, separable from the nature and the purpose of
what is communicated and from the dynamics of communication as such. In the next section I
focus on three of the dimensions which have a bearing on allophonic variation, viz. the
ideational, discursive, and social functions of language. In other words, I will discuss (a) the kind
of phonetic variation which serves the fundamental purpose of realizing a distinctive unit (i.e. the
phoneme) and which does not necessarily carry an additional social message, (b) co-textual
variation (that which derives from discursive factors), and (c) variation of a contextual type (that
which pertains to social cognition and interaction).
II. A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO PHONETIC VARIATION
In what follows I shall discuss a number of different dimensions implementing the terms
`ideational´, `social´ and `discursive´. These correspond, roughly speaking, to Halliday’s (1978)
trichotomy of the `ideational´, `interpersonal´, and `textual´ functions of language. However, on
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
111
the assumption that not only inter-personal, but also inter-group and intra-group mechanisms are
at work in social interaction, the term `social´ will be employed instead of `interpersonal´.
Likewise, `discursive´ is preferred to `textual´, since, although we know that texts – in the sense
of coherent stretches of language regardless of size or mode – are oral as well as written, the
dynamics of ongoing, oral, discourse is made more prominent by using the former expression. I
retain, albeit reluctantly, the term `ideational´ since social information is no less a question of
(internally complex and subjectively construed) semantic domains than is `factual´ information.
In this respect, Jakobson’s (1960) `referential´ and Lyon’s (1977) `descriptive´ do not offer a
helpful distinction, either.
II.1. The ideational function of language
The ideational function of language, according to which phonemes function as builders of
`factual´ meaning at the level of the morpheme and allophonic variants are processed as mere
phonemic slot-fillers, is so well-known that little needs to be explicated. In very general terms,
since the discovery of minimal pairs, both Structuralism and Functionalism established a clear
distinction between the meaning-making levels of linguistic structure (beginning with
morphology) and the meaning-building ones (i.e. the levels `below´ morphology). It was not until
the birth of Sociolinguistics that the correlation between social variables and phonetic variants
began to be studied in a systematic way. Cognitive Linguistics has perhaps neglected precisely
that aspect, but in turn it has contributed to a prototype-theoretical conception of the phoneme as
a mental category (Mompeán, 2004; Nathan, 1986, 1994, 1996, 1999; Taylor, 1990, 1995, 2002).
In a phonemic prototype category, phonetic variants cluster around a central member which is
maximally contrastive with respect to the central members of neighboring categories (Taylor,
1995: 221). In theory, then, the specific sets of phoneme categories organized around such major
acoustic-perceptual contrasts in actual usage (the options logically being constrained by human
physiological conditions in general) constitute the phoneme inventories of natural languages.
However, although the cognitive phonology view of phoneme category structure is
certainly an attractive model, it is far from unproblematic. For a start, it is implicitly assumed that
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
112
the vast kind of language-internal variation we encounter across lectal categories can be brought
under one schematic representation. It is assumed, for example, that the English phoneme
category /t/ can be described (implementing either a network model or a radial category model) in
such a way that all the variants of /t/ in actual usage in `English´ can be subsumed within the
same category. In the case of /t/, even if social variants are allowed to become reflected, we can
still easily talk about a consistent radial category, featuring extensions based on relative similarity
with respect to central or more peripheral members, all of which ultimately organized, in more or
less direct ways, around a prototypical member. Yet in many other cases, the model is not that
easily applied. Or rather, viewed from a usage-based perspective, the data fail to fit the model in
as neat a way as we would like them to. This is particularly true in the case of the vowels. Let us
take an example from the Linguistic Atlas of England (Orton et al., 1978):
Figure 1. Variants of the vowel in the verb lay in traditional English dialects according to The Linguistic Atlas of
England (Orton et al., 1978).
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
113
The map in Figure 1 represents realizations of the vowel pronounced in the word-form <lay> in
traditional dialects in England between 1950 and 1960. The data are perhaps somehow obsolete,
but they will do for our present purposes, as the heterogeneous situation conveyed by the map is
representative of dialectal variation. We may note, for a start, that many of the steps of the Great
Vowel Shift never reached the very North of England, with retention of many of the
monophthongs from the Old English period as a result. In fact, while it is certainly still possible
to draw up a schematic representation which depicts chaining relationships among the variants, or
instantiations, in actual occurrence, it is much harder to posit that there should be just one single
phoneme (not in the sense of a prototype category, but of a distinctive builder of ideational
meaning) at work at the same time. We encounter realizations such as [laɪ] and [li:], which would
clearly be transphonemic if one specific phonological system, such as RP, were to form the basis
of our model (i.e. [laɪ] and [li:] evoke the semantic poles of lie and lee for a speaker of RP and
many Southern English dialects). The question is not only how to chart the internal structure of a
formal category in adequate ways, but also whose system(s) we are representing. Large-scale
speech communities are complex and heterogeneous, and to be really usage-based cognitive
phonology must account for the fact that there are multiple, and quite dissimilar variants in use
and different phonological systems at work within the same language. The easy way out is to
adopt the position that each lectal variety forms an autonomous system of its own, to be analyzed
independently, regardless of the existence of neighboring, or adjacent systems. As I have pointed
out on other occasions (cf. Kristiansen, 2003: 76), this is precisely the way systemic-functional
linguistics solved the problem. By establishing a distinction between language as institution
(consisting of independently formed varieties) and language as system (language perceived as a
system analyzable in terms of layers of linguistic structure), Halliday (1978) sifted one fairly
homogeneous (but of course still very heterogeneous in many other respects) kind of language
from the sum of its lectal varieties. Yet a usage-based approach cannot afford to work at such a
high level of abstraction, especially in the field of cognitive phonology. It is not realistic to work
around one variety of a language, no matter how prestigious and accessible it happens to be, and
equate it with the language in question.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
114
II.2. The discursive function of language
Natural phonology argues that the discursive roles of hearer and speaker result in a series of
(perhaps conflicting, but on the other hand perfectly compatible) tendencies. While both hearer
and speaker seek improvements, speaker does so by means of mechanisms involving `ease of
effort´ and hence `ease of articulation´. The hearer-oriented role, in turn, is rather aimed towards
`clear and effective communication´. Following Stampe (1979), Nathan (1996: 116-117) has
argued that fortitions are processes which select among all possible human sounds those which
constitute the phonemes of a particular language and which define prototype effects for language
sounds. Lenitions, on the other hand, are processes which create allophonic variants, i.e.
extensions from a prototypical member within a radial network. These phonological processes are
“universal cognitive mechanisms that languages have and may or may not use (that is, may or
may not suppress) in any given instance” (Nathan, 1996: 113). Fortitions thus help us understand
phoneme inventories in terms of series of phoneme categories whose prototypical members show
a maximum degree of perceptual difference. Such an approach is of course highly compatible
with general principles of prototypicality: maximum acoustic-perceptual salience and inter-
categorial contrast as an organizing principle for the structure of phoneme inventories and
categories constitute criterial factors in both cases. Numerous processes of assimilation, on the
other hand, may be explained in terms of lenitions (e.g. the `rule´ according to which an alveolar
nasal becomes labialized in immediate contact with other labial sounds: <in Paris> [ɪmˈpærɪs]).
Obviously, the discursive (or co-textual) variants which systematically occur in a given dialect -
or at least in the most prototypical instantiations of the variety in question – would naturally form
part of a minute description of intra-phonemic variation.4
II.3. The social function of language
Accents are socially diagnostic. When a stretch of speech is processed, not only can hearer
decode an ideational message (conveyed by constructions from those layers of a language we
traditionally label in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax or lexis), but also an additional
social message. This can be even more forceful than an explicit statement, precisely because
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
115
hearer on occasions receives the information in an implicit way. The information we receive
without being fully aware of it is likely not to be questioned in the same way as an explicit
statement about regional origin and psychological characteristics would. Paradigmatic variation
thus overrides the linear constraint of language in subtle ways. To the extent that children
gradually build up knowledge of lectal varieties and learn how to relate them systematically to
social domains, social values and stereotypical perceptions, a speaker can become not only
categorized, but also characterized on the mere basis of his accent.
If this (relative) awareness has implications for language change, it may ultimately also
have an influence on the shape of phonemic categories and inventories. In this respect, when a
given phonetic variant begins to spread throughout the social and regional dimensions, ceases at a
given point, co-exists with other variants and eventually replaces a number of its local
`competitors´, the role and the motivations of the speakers who, either above or below the level
of conscious awareness, opt for just this variant should not be underestimated. In fact, as Bybee
points out, in order to understand language change, we should look for dynamic mechanisms
which pertain to or influence actual language usage:
…the true universals of language are the dynamic mechanisms that cause language to change in certain systematic ways as it is used and as it is transmitted to new generations. (Bybee, 2001: 189)
The kind of social cognition that will be described in more detail in this section can be viewed to
fall within the category of such dynamic mechanisms. In a multi-dimensional approach to
language variation and change, cognitive, social and functional factors will naturally combine as
causative mechanisms to eventually shape the systems of a given language. This is a conception
which is ultimately not compatible with theories which regard social factors as mere triggers of
deeper, inherent or `natural´ causes of language change (e.g. Aitchison, 1991).
At this stage it is necessary to clarify that in this paper the term `social´ is used to denote
the various social contexts which surround us. On the one hand there is an immediate context
which involves the speech event as such, including the participants (speaker, hearer, bystanders,
etc.) and their social status, the setting, the topics, the communicative goals, etc.). On the other
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
116
hand, there is also a wider social context which involves the participants’ knowledge of, or belief
in, a series of the Cultural Cognitive Models (Holland & Quinn 1987) at their disposal, and their
knowledge about social groups, including social and linguistic stereotypes. These two types of
context intertwine and interact in intricate ways. In fact, they are only distinguished in such an
apparently easy and discrete way here for the sake of explanatory clarity. The former situates
social interaction in real time and space and enables us to work around actual (and often
purposive) usage of speech styles. The latter is transmitted, negotiated, developed and maintained
in situated social interaction. Both types of context thus play a crucial role in social cognition.
In very general terms, in the author’s main line of research (e.g. Kristiansen, 2001, 2003,
forthcoming a) the fact that accents are socially diagnostic has served as a starting-point from
which related issues have been explored in a number of different directions, including the
relationship between accents (in terms of structured speech patterns) and social meaning from a
Cognitive Linguistics perspective. My research thus falls within the wider fields of cognitive
dialectology, cognitive sociolinguistics and language variation and change, but part of the
analysis has a direct bearing on phonology and may be summarized as follows:
1. Lectal varieties (i.e. those categories we more traditionally label in terms of regional or social
dialects, accents or speech styles) and social categories (i.e. social groups and identities such
as British, Cockney, Northerner, South African, Australian, etc.) constitute prototype
categories which interact at various levels of abstraction. The central images of lectal
varieties (speech templates or linguistic stereotypes, consisting of a cluster of salient features,
of which allophonic variants play an important role) act as effective reference point
constructions which through a basic metonymic operation (accents form part of a wider
frame, a social domain) evokes the corresponding social stereotypes: LANGUAGE STANDS FOR
SOCIAL IDENTITIES.
2. Once the link between a linguistic and a social stereotype has been established, it may be put
to even more constructive uses, as speakers posses not only receptive, but also – at least to
some extent – productive competence of speech styles. It is extremely difficult to imitate a
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
117
non-native speech style to perfection, but the most salient features are relatively easy to
perform. Paradigmatic variation is also a metaphor: LANGUAGE IS A TOOL FOR CONVEYING
SOCIAL MEANING.
These are statements which need to be spelled out in more detail. When I implement the notion of
linguistic stereotype it is in a neutral, technical way. What I have in mind is a complex cluster of
features which, from the perspective of folk perception, in the best and clearest way allows us to
categorize and identify the structured speech style of the members of a given speech community.
Linguistic stereotypes very effectively evoke the corresponding social stereotypes, conceived, in
equally neutral terms, as outgroup images of a given social category.
Speech patterns acquired in early childhood are not easily changed, and linguistic
stereotypes thus constitute an especially reliable marker of social identity. Hence, the link
between linguistic and social stereotypes is fundamentally of a metonymic nature: an EFFECT FOR
CAUSE mapping which leads the conceptualizer from a linguistic trigger to a wider social target:
to a social group and the encyclopaedic knowledge we have about it (social habits, dress, dance,
song). This knowledge includes a series of Cultural Cognitive Models (i.e. ideological patterns
and components) and often take the form of stereotypical perceptions.
I understand social stereotypes in terms of simplified outgroup perceptions which condense
information regarding what the members of a given group are like (e.g. in terms of psychological
attributes, ideological beliefs and social behavior). The existence of a fairly stable relationship
between speech styles and social targets thus underlies the general metonymy LANGUAGE STANDS
FOR SOCIAL IDENTITIES. When a linguistic feature is heard as `prestigious´, `intelligent´ or `posh´
and in reality it is the group of speakers associated with the feature in question which is being
evaluated as such, it is accordingly not a process of iconization (Irvine & Gal, 2000), but rather
an indexical process which is at work. The force of the process is easily comprehended if we bear
in mind that the features contained in just one two-syllable word (cf. Purnell et al., 1999) suffice
to evoke the whole lectal category (a part-whole metonymy) which in turn links, again
indexically, with a social domain and the corresponding social stereotypes.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
118
Receptive competence is however only the starting-point of a much more complex story.
Once a stable referential link has been established between a lectal variety and a social domain,
entrenched linguistic trigger - social value relationships can now be put to new, constructive uses.
In other words, the existence of receptive competence can be exploited by speakers in order to
signal social values. Structured paradigmatic variation can thus also be put to metaphorical uses:
LANGUAGE IS A TOOL FOR CONVEYING SOCIAL MEANING.
If I speak of the central images of lectal varieties and social groups as cognitive reference
point constructions (and not just cognitive reference points), it is to emphasize the fact that such
images are relative and relational: situated and group-dependent construals. Social and linguistic
stereotypes are perhaps best understood as instances of situated cognition (cf. Kristiansen,
forthcoming b), as structure which emerges, is transmitted, negotiated and maintained through
dynamic interaction between people in real situations in real historical time. In consequence, the
specific combination of items which compose a given social stereotype will to a large extent
depend on contextually determined intergroup relationships. In the case of linguistic stereotypes,
the features that characterize the speech of an outgroup will also be determined by the nature of
the features present in our own ingroup speech pattern. For instance, the phonetic variants which
are perceived as salient and identifying of French to an Englishman or a Dane might not be
viewed as such by an Italian. If a speaker possesses a similar realization in similar phonetic
contexts in his own language, the feature will not stand out as perceptually salient. Lectal
categorization, when viewed from this broad perspective, is not only a purely cognitive
phenomenon, but also a process which must also be considered in terms of cultural situatedness.
For linguistic stereotypes to relate in an exclusive way to a social group – for accents to be
socially diagnostic – the cluster of features that set a speech style off as distinct from others must
be composed of a unique combination of perceptually salient features. This is in consonance with
Nunberg’s (1978) line of thought when he asked himself how hearer and speaker manage to
determine referents in deferred ostension. In metonymic conceptual operations, what kind of
visual demonstratum will successfully lead to the intended referent, and which will fail to do so?
As I have previously pointed out (Kristiansen, 2003), Nunberg in reality asked himself what the
ideal signifier in operations of metonymic reference is like. He reasoned that a given form will
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
119
successfully lead to the intended referent if it relates to it in an `exclusive´ way (so as to identify
and not just characterize the target) and that the form in question must be `perceptually distinct´
enough for effective subclassification to take place, so as to be able to distinguish it from similar
forms within the same general category which have different values attached to them.
In the field of phonology, there are multiple possibilities (though each language only
exploits relatively few of these) of establishing acoustic-perceptual contrasts which allow for
salient subsets to become effected within the more general category of a phoneme. There is no
reason why such minor contrasts should not function according to the same fundamental
principles as those which determine degrees of prototypicality for phoneme categories in general:
…the putative central member of /t/ -say, the voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive- enters into a number of highly salient perceptual and articulatory contrasts with the putative central members of neighbouring categories, such as the unaspirated alveolar plosive of /d/, the voiceless aspirated velar plosive of /k/, and so on. (Taylor, 1995: 228)
Intraphonemic acoustic-perceptual contrasts (subphonemic prototypes) are thus minor when
compared to that which sets [tʰ] off from, say, [kʰ], but still major enough to create distinct
subsets within a given category:
Figure 2. Some linguistic stereotypes based on intraphonemic acoustic-perceptual contrasts within the category /t/ in British English and metonymic reference to social domains.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
120
As a case in point, the use of the glottal stop in intervocalic position is obviously not sufficient to
invoke the Cockney accent. Rather, it is a complex cluster of features (cf. Kristiansen, 2003,
forthcoming a) which from a hearer-oriented perspective effectively categorizes a stretch of
speech as a token of a given type in an exclusive way. From a speaker-oriented perspective, we
would speak in terms of social differentiation being achieved by means of linguistic
distinctiveness (cf. Giles et al., 1987; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Assimilation to a prototype category is usually thought of in terms of relative similarity with
respect to another member of the category in question, be this peripheral or more central. Hence
we speak of chaining relationships or radial networks. Prototype categories are flexible entities in
the sense that the boundaries are extendable (new members may be added to allow for human
cognition to adapt itself to change, innovation or new discoveries in a complex social and
physical world). In theory, a new member is similar enough to at least one existing member in
order to be categorized as a member of a given category and not as a member of a contrasting
category (or an instance of a given schema, not another). Conversely, however, a new member
must also necessarily be perceived as distinct, or different enough to deserve the status of a
different subcategorization, a new extension or a new instantiation, to use several of the notions
in current usage, and not just a token of an already existing type.
For the sake of exemplification, consider an invented case of categorization from the visual
domain. In Figure 3, the left-most shape is a kiki and the right-hand shape is a booba.5 Or so at
least 95 per cent of subjects systematically estimated in a series of experiments on psycho-
acoustics (Köhler, 1929, 1947; Werner, 1934, 1957; Werner & Wapner, 1952) when asked which
shape was called what in a language unknown to them, the options being kiki and booba (the
latter word pronounced with [ɔ:], not [u:]):
Figure 3. A kiki and a booba.
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
121
Suppose that, as a reader of this paper, you are now asked to draw another kiki and that you draw
a shape which is very similar to the kiki represented above. Suppose that you are told that you
were expected to reflect a `different´ kiki, not the same kind of kiki (i.e. not a token of the same
type). You then draw a kiki with fewer or perhaps more sides than the first one, but presumably
still with pointed sides, so as not to produce a booba. If asked to do the same with the booba
shape, your drawing might resemble this one:
Figure 4. A different kiki and a different booba.
Say more instances of irregular kikis, or six-sided kikis, become produced, either in different
situations or by different groups of subjects. And that four-sided boobas show up systematically
alongside seven-sided boobas under a series of contextual circumstances. The general categories
of kikis and boobas have now become divided into subcategories, with slightly different tokens
representing two different subtypes. At the linguistic end of the formal trigger-conceptual content
axis, a new term would in all probability now arise to designate the new intra-categorical subtype,
and this form would in many cases iconically convey both membership (retain part of the word-
form designating the general category) and subclassification (possess some kind of formally
distinctive element). The adjectival modifier in `four-sided kiki´ serves the latter purpose, the
modified head the former.6 The point is of course that successful subcategorization seems to be
based as much on subtle, but still perceptually salient enough differences as on perceived
similarity. In a similar way certain allophones, those which I have referred to in terms of
subphonemic prototypes, while perceived as members of the same general category, are also
perceptually distinct enough to form a new subcategory and thus serve as ideal triggers of new,
additional meaning. Salient allophones can serve the dual purpose of realizing a phoneme
(according to the ideational function) and evoke social group membership at the same time.7
When viewed from both a hearer and speaker-oriented perspective, the possibility of drawing on
such a pool of triggers of social meaning enables hearer to decode social information on the one
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
122
hand, and allows groups of speakers to encode it by choosing especially contrastive forms in their
speech, much in the same way as they would, more mundanely, wear a distinctive kind of
garment or opt for a specific hairstyle.
III. LECTAL VARIETIES AS EXPERIENTIALLY GROUNDED CONSTRUALS
In this section lectal categories will be examined in terms of construals grounded in individual
and group-related experience. In III.1, I discuss the distinction between receptive and productive
competence of lectal categories and relate competence to the notion of relative awareness.
Subsection III.2 centers on lectal competence and language acquisition, and finally, in III.3 I
address the question of lectal competence and distributed cognition.
III.1. Receptive and productive competence
Languages are schematic with respect to their instantiations: we inevitably speak a given variety
of our mother tongue. In much the same way, linguistic input necessarily consists of real
instantiations which become processed for a variety of purposes in terms of low-level or high-
level schemas. For example, a phoneme is a schematic abstraction which cannot be pronounced
as such. Also, words are invariably realized by means of a combination of specific phonetic
variants. A word such as <butter> can only be realized as e.g. [ˈbʌtʰə], [ˈbʊtʰə] or [ˈbʌʔə] and then
processed `ideationally´ as a sequence of phonemes (/ˈbʌtə/ → `butter´). In the right
circumstances (i.e. when hearer possesses the necessary knowledge and is attentive enough) such
instantiations will also be processed lectally (a given combination of linguistic features leads us
to a particular lectal variety). That phonetic detail should be stored and processed alongside the
function of realizing a phoneme is certainly not at odds with Bybee’s (1988, 2001) model of a
mental lexicon and a usage-based phonology; words are stored in their concrete phonetic forms
and phonetic detail retained in long-term memory.
Let us assume that we gradually acquire knowledge about a large number of lectal varieties
and the speech communities they relate to. In other words, that we gradually acquire receptive
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
123
competence of speech styles. Lectal categorization would then involve a conceptualizer who
correlates a token (stretch of unidentified speech) with a number of idealized speech models
(linguistic stereotypes). The similarity may be relative, of course; two people who `speak with the
same accent´ obviously do not speak exactly the same way. Rather, their intonation patterns,
phonetic realizations and phonemic slots are judged to be relatively similar when compared to a
model. But we also soon learn how to put linguistic stereotypes to other, equally constructive
uses. The fact that effective categorization seems to be based on a reduced series of highly salient
features facilitates the process known as style-shifting. While it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to imitate a non-native accent to perfection, with all the subtle phonotactic and
distributional combinations of salient and much less salient variants, the components of a
linguistic stereotype are fairly easy to imitate. The term productive competence denotes the use of
features from a style which does not form part of a speaker’s habitual repertoire.
A note is now necessary on awareness. Accents are socially diagnostic because linguistic
cues index social meaning, or – in more technical terms – because a source-in-target metonymic
conceptual operation mediates between structured sets of linguistic triggers and the social domain
they project. However, this process is presumably often a below-the-level-of-consciousness
affair. A little more than four decades ago, with the birth of Sociolinguistics, it became clear to
many scholars that a systematic study of social dialects could not rely on the same methods as
those traditionally implemented in the study of regional dialects. Eliciting informants’ intuitions
in a direct way, e.g. by means of the questionnaires used in many surveys, proved to be an
inadequate procedure for a systematic description of social dialects for two major and interrelated
reasons. On the one hand, social speech styles relate to contextual factors. Speakers vary their
style according to situational factors such as setting and topic, or the style and status of the
interviewer.8 They also evaluate, consciously or not, the relative position of their own style on a
social hierarchy of varieties according to variables such as prestige and stigmatization – and
might accordingly over-represent the actual occurrence of features which rate high on the scale of
prestige. On the other hand, actual usage, as the sociolinguists soon recognized, is often situated
below the level of conscious awareness. In consequence, speakers’ own perception of their
speech style is likely not to coincide with actual usage, self-perception being potentially
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
124
distorted, inaccurate or – if we take the principle of the cognitive unconscious seriously – quite
simply not fully accessible.9 Awareness is furthermore a gradable dimension, and speakers are
presumably often only conscious to a certain degree of the messages they receive when listening
to stretches of speech. However, messages received below the level of conscious awareness are
still received – and may lead to positive or negative evaluations, to rejection, admiration or
imitation, if only on an apparently intuitive basis. Finally, and with regards to productive
competence, that a speaker should occasionally imitate – or try to adopt on a regular basis – a
feature from a given speech style because it is `fashionable´ is a commonly quoted explanation of
sound change. Yet fashion can surely also be viewed as a variable which is ultimately dependent
on hearer’s perception of the hierarchical position of the lectal and social domains projected by a
given linguistic feature. This perception invariably involves at least an implicit degree of
awareness regarding the link between linguistic feature, social group and social meaning. Fashion
could thus also be viewed as a cover term for a limited, but still productive degree of awareness
as regards the processes which relate linguistic form to social meaning.
We all soon acquire a natural stylistic repertoire and moreover posses the ability to imitate
new speech styles – or at least the most salient features of the styles of other groups. We may
even set up new, local identities. These are often effected by selecting a series of socially
meaningful features stemming from stable, large-scale social categories. Eckert (2004), for
instance, reports on the various ways in which one particular British English feature (final /t/ with
an audible release of aspiration), associated with the British as superior, intelligent and educated,
has been put to a variety of different uses by American speakers of English (cf. Kristiansen,
forthcoming a).10
The features that are imitated, or adopted and put to new uses, in the first place are those
that stand out as especially salient. In this respect, not all contrasts are equally important in terms
of acoustic-perceptual perception, and this is one more reason why we should treat the social
function as separate dimension. It could be argued, for instance, that an account of phonetic
variation which incorporates the variants in actual usage within the lectal varieties that compose a
given language (alongside those that arise from discursive factors and other relevant functions)
will already include the kind of social variation which is under scrutiny in this section, i.e. that by
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
125
lowering the level of abstraction so as to work around language-internal varieties and not `a
language´, the social function is already duly covered. But if we did that, we would on the one
hand remain at a descriptive level and fail to appreciate numerous factors which might well have
a bearing on language change, and on the other hand miss out on the opportunity to investigate
such factors in more depth. Language acquisition, for instance, is one of the areas in which it
might be particularly fruitful to invest.
III.2. Lectal competence and language acquisition
So far research on accent-based speaker identification (e.g. Purnell et al., 1999; van Bezooijen &
Gooskens, 1999; the many studies on speech identification in relation to Artificial Intelligence)
and perceptual dialectology (e.g. Niedzielski & Preston, 2000) has largely concentrated on adult
informants. Yet, if we adopt a usage-based approach and assume that the acquisition of speech
styles is experientially grounded and that phonetic detail is stored as such (Bybee, 2001) and put
to constructive uses, then there is a lack of empirical studies on the acquisition of receptive and
productive competence of lectal varieties in children. When do children begin to construe low-
level schemas, paying attention not only to what is said, but also to how it is said? If schemas are
usage-based, at what age does dialect identification emerge, and how specific is it at different
intervals of age? There is a need in other words to investigate, amongst others, the following
factors:
• The degree to which children acquire receptive competence of accents at different intervals
of age. • The relative precision with which accents are identified at different intervals of age. • The relative degree of awareness regarding the specific features which allow children to
proceed to correct dialect identification. • The relative capacity of children to imitate accents (productive competence) at different
intervals of age. • The factors which, age apart, have a bearing on lectal acquisition. • The relative degree of awareness of children regarding the relationship between linguistic
and social stereotypes.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
126
III.3. Lectal competence and distributed cognition
If “input to language acquisition are encounters with actual linguistic expressions, fully specified
in their phonological, semantic and symbolic aspects” (Taylor, 2002: 27) and “knowledge of a
language is based in knowledge of actual usage and of generalizations made over usage events”
(ibid), it follows that not all individuals will possess the same kind of knowledge, nor always
effect the same kind of generalizations. Or as Geeraerts (1997: 110) formulates it, a distinction
between “a cumulative, macro-level picture of the language and the individual language user’s
micro-level knowledge” is most convenient:
[…] we would probably not want to maintain that all mature speakers of the language actively command the entire range of semasiological possibilities that are combined in the prototype-based descriptions. An alternative way to interpret diagrams […] is to think of them as representing the summed knowledge of language users at a certain moment in the development of the language (and then also, of course, the knowledge of an ideal language user). (ibid.)
From the perspective of a level of granularity which lies above that of the individual, Sharifian
(2003) argues that the elements of cultural schemas are not shared by all members of a cultural
network, but rather distributed across the minds. It is not by virtue of the belief in only one
schema that one becomes a member of a cultural group, but the overall degree of how much a
person draws on various cultural schemas that makes an individual a more or less representative
member. Cultural schemas, or cultural cognitive models, thus thrive within groups and the group
emerges as such, shaped and brought into existence by relatively shared beliefs, values and
norms. In similar ways, the group also determines and is determined by relatively shared speech
patterns such as `dialects´, `accents´ and `styles´ and by relatively shared social stereotypes.
In this respect it would be interesting to know more about how uniform folk perception of
the way in which another social group speaks is across the members of a given ingroup. We
might also want to know more about the extent to which linguistic stereotypes constitute relative
construals across different cultural and lectal communities. To what extent, for instance, does the
linguistic stereotype of Spanish differ when acquired by a Frenchman, an Italian and an
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
127
Englishman, respectively? How do the features of one’s own mother tongue – and motheraccent-
influence our perception of what stands out as contrastive or salient? But even more important are
the theoretical implications of viewing competence of a given language in terms of relatively
shared and distributed knowledge.
IV. MODELS OF PHONEMIC CATEGORY STRUCTURE The two prevailing models of phonemic category structure in Cognitive Linguistics (Mompeán,
2004: 436-444) are the radial category model and the network model. In this section we shall
briefly discuss these in relation to a usage-based cognitive phonology.
The radial category model assumes that less prototypical members are organized around a
prototypical member in terms of extensions assimilated to the category on the principle of
relative similarity:
Figure 5. The radial category model as represented in Mompeán (2004).
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
128
The resulting chaining relationships stretching out from the centre to the periphery have been
compared to the spokes of a wheel:
The specific nature of the organization has been termed a radial category, because the relationship among the members is similar to an image of spokes on a wheel. There is (or may be) a central member or members. Arranged around the central members are less central ones, which are similar to the central member, but differ from it in some respect (Nathan, 1996: 110-111)
The members `arranged together on one spoke´ do not necessarily have any kind of relationship
with members forming part of adjacent spokes:
Adjacent spokes do not necessarily have any relationship with one another, but only via a path that they can both trace back to the same center. (Nathan, 1996: 112)
Metaphorical mappings involving source domains which comprise elements such as wheels and
chains are adequate enough if lectal varieties are understood in terms of different analogical
systems which do not interact in dynamic ways with one another. However, these mappings do
not suffice if we also intend to describe the ways in which perceptual dissimilarity and intra-
phonemic contrasts among the members of phonemic categories allow for language users to
convey social differentiation through linguistic distinctiveness. Our pictorial representations,
arrows included, should also convey the possibility that contrastive relationships emerge in a
non-linear fashion. Metaphorically, then, we are in need of a more suitable source domain than
wheel. The label radial network itself is in fact more neutral in the sense that it implies a system
of interwoven relationships which need not follow a specific path.
Langacker’s (1988) network model, on the other hand, involves a category prototype,
context-induced extensions from this prototype and a schema which captures the commonality
perceived in the various extensions. The improvement with respect to the radial category model
thus lies in the fact that the network models operates with a two-level structure: the level of actual
occurrence (of often quite dissimilar variants) and a schematic unit which is an abstraction over
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
129
usage-based events. In the case of phonemic categories, the schema corresponds to the phoneme
as such:
Figure 6. The network model as represented in Mompeán (2004).
As Mompeán explains, it is often not possible to extract one schema which represents a
generalization with respect to all the extensions (which is only natural, the very nature of a
prototype category considered). Rather, several schemas may arise which relate to different
clusters of instances:
However, it is not always possible to abstract a viable, psycholinguistically plausible schema that is fully compatible with all the members of a category. For example, not every member of the phoneme category /t/ shares the features ‘‘alveolar’’, ‘‘voiceless’’, and ‘‘stop’’, so the abstraction of a highly abstract schema which contains a feature common to all members of the category and distinguishes the category from others is impossible (Taylor, 1990). The model permits, however, the abstractions of local schemas embodying the commonality of many but not all members of the category (Bybee, 1999). Some commonality between certain members of a phoneme category may exist but the commonality may not extend to the totality of the members. One such local schema for /t/ could contain the features [voiceless], [alveolar], and [stop], shared by many but not all members of the category (Taylor, 1990). (Mompeán, 2004: 458)
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
130
The need to posit that various schemas are at work at the same time is of course related to the fact
that quite often formally very dissimilar variants are functionally operative as distinctive speech
sounds in the same lexical sets in the same language. In such cases it is not easy to draw a
coherent representation which involves only two levels of abstraction: specific language-internal
variants and one language-specific schema.
In the light of the previous discussion, it might be useful to approach the problem from a
variety of different angles. First, by applying our general knowledge about prototypicality to
phonemic categories, second, by discussing the role of lectal varieties in phonemic description
and third, by bringing in the perspectives of distributed cognition, expert analysis and folk
perception.
IV.1. Phonemic categories and prototypicality
As we have just observed, similarity in form and commonality are considered as unifying factors
in cognitive phonology. In the case of the radial network model, the relationship between the
prototype and its extensions is based on perceived similarity, and in the case of the network
model, schemas arise as generalizations embodying the commonality of their instances. In the
absence of a commonality which applies to all members, local schemas obviously provide a
category which exhibits a high degree of variation with internal cohesion. Let us observe that in a
prototype category it is only normal for family resemblances to cluster in partially overlapping
subsets, and we would certainly not expect there to be one single feature which would be
common to all the extensions (unless one opts for a classical model based on necessary and
sufficient features, or an essentialist definition). In fact, one would expect a phonemic category to
exhibit the same characteristics as any other prototype category, to varying degrees, does: (i)
absence of classical definitions, (ii) clustering of overlapping senses – or features, (iii) degrees of
representativity, and (iv) absence of clear boundaries. In the case of lexical items (cf. Geeraerts et
al., 1994: 48), the first two characteristics operate at the intensional level and the last two at the
extensional one, but combine in other ways as well: while (i) and (iv) reflect the flexibility and
vagueness that characterizes many prototype categories, (ii) and (iii) in turn result from perceived
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
131
differences in structural weight. Nonequality and nonrigidity thus lie in the very nature of
prototypicality.
Furthermore, it is often not formal, but functional criteria which determine whether a new
subcategorization is established within a prototype category. In the case of the superordinate
category FURNITURE, for instance, ashtrays may become assimilated as (peripheral) category
members (Taylor, 1995) because they are functionally related to other such domestic artifacts
despite being dissimilar in form to other central or non-central members. In the case of phonetic
variants, from a speaker-oriented perspective the need for distinctive variants to convey social
meaning can lead to both intra-phonemic and trans-phonemic variation. From a hearer-oriented
perspective, dissimilarity would at first sight appear to be as counter-productive as lenitions are
when viewed against the principles which underlie fortitions. However, opposing tendencies need
not be incompatible. Even if a given speech sound (y) were to be classified as an instance of a
given phoneme (Y) in hearer’s own phonological system, when uttered by a speaker from a
different speech community in a context where x is expected, y could still be classified as an
instance of phoneme X, at least for the purpose of mutual understanding – as when [laɪ] is heard
and `lay´ is understood (cf. above). In other words, if “each encounter with the language leaves a
mental trace in the corpus” (Taylor, 2002: 33), and our receptive competence is experientially
grounded, the variant y will be understood to belong to category X in the speech and system of
the speaker in question – an at least ad hoc categorization based on functional, rather than
perceptual criteria.
What, then, holds a phoneme category together? Clusters based on perceptual similarity or
co-occurrence of distinct realizations in the same phonetic context, or more specifically, within
the same lexical set? Is the train of thought primarily in the direction of `as this sound is similar
to sound y it must be processed as phoneme Y´ or `as this sound occurs in a context where I
expect sound y, it should be processed as an instantiation of phoneme Y´? In the former case, the
radial category model is adequate enough, but in the latter case the network model is superior as
it enables us to work around different layers of abstraction. It is also worth noticing that one of
the implications of such a perspective is that phoneme recognition might well be lexically
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
132
mediated. If this is the case, the ideational function interacts with the social function of language
in ways which are flexible enough to allow for both of these apparently conflicting tendencies to
co-exist, to render language an efficient tool for a variety of communicative purposes at the same
time.
IV.2. Phonemic categories and lectal variation
The network model, then, allows us to work around different levels of abstraction. Would it be
possible for the model also to incorporate low-level schemas at an intermediate level of linguistic
diversity? A model capable of operating with high-level schemas, local schemas and instances
should indeed be able to reflect the taxonomic intricacies of language-internal variation in a far
more precise fashion than the radial network model. It might also be fruitful to shift the
perspective from category-internal variation (involving pure form) to a language-internal one,
reflecting form, users and functions alike. An intermediate level of `local schemas´ would
furthermore fill an important gap in a usage-based approach: that which – mediating between
parole and langue – incorporates structured variation at the level of lects. Obviously, the kind of
low-level schemas discussed in this section differ from the results of a post-hoc analysis
concerned with finding patterns in subgroups with relative similarity as the basic criterial factor.
Rather, it is an account which allows for language-internal categories to form part of the global
picture. Relative dissimilarity between (clusters of relatively similar) features and a consideration
of the ways in which these relate to their users would certainly also form part of the analysis.
The network model moreover allows us to reflect the factor of awareness as discussed in
section III.1 above. The following three-level figure draws on Tuggy’s (1993) representation of
the ambiguity-vagueness cline between lexical polysemy and homophony:
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
133
Figure 7. Salience and awareness in phonemic and lectal categorization
In Tuggy’s analysis, the thickness and continuity of the lines iconically convey the enhanced
entrenchment, or degree of salience, of either a schema or a semantic structure, associated with
the same phonological pole. Tuggy views entrenchment in terms of enduring salience, i.e.
salience apart from relatively transitory effects such as directed attention or heightened activation
due to contextual factors. As it is precisely such transitory effects that we are interested in, the
same conventions will do for our present purposes. 7a illustrates the ideational function of
language: the high-level schema (the phoneme as a distinctive unit) receives full attention while
lectal schemas and phonetic instances are backgrounded - which does not equal saying that the
information provided is discarded.11 Priority is given to the distinctive function fulfilled by the
phoneme – an abstraction realized by specific instances. In 7b and 7c, lectal categorization
becomes increasingly more prominent. 7d and 7e both illustrate a high degree of awareness
regarding the social function of language: the high-level schema is backgrounded and attention is
on the link between linguistic form and social meaning, with an emphasis on either form, or
meaning, respectively.
IV.2. Phonemic representation and phonemic categorization: expert analysis vs. folk perception We have so far argued that regardless of whether we implement the radial category model or the
network model, our description should aim at being as refined as possible. Ideally, we would aim
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
134
at incorporating the whole range of variants in actual use in a given language - conceived of in
terms of a heterogeneous speech community and a complex social system.
If what we intend, however, is to reach a better understanding of what goes on in the mind
of the native speaker, this picture may well turn out to be rather fictitious. Even if we succeeded
in bringing all the variants in actual use under the same schematic representation, the
representation might not be very realistic. To the extent that cognition is distributed across speech
communities and cultural groups - if knowledge is only relatively shared - a realistic view cannot
posit that the individual user stores the whole range of variants in actual use within a language, be
they phonetic variants or perhaps the multiple senses of a polysemous lexeme or preposition.
Sandra and Rice (1995) convincingly question the validity of representations of vast,
global networks of senses depicted in the analysis of linguists as opposed to what ipso facto is
acquired and stored in terms of mental representations in the mind of the individual, and it is
indeed important to establish a distinction between the linguist’s attempt at providing a global
picture (one which cumulatively depicts the existence of multiple networks) and folk perception
(the relative knowledge of a more global network in the mind of the individual - and the
linguist’s attempt at reflecting more local networks). The tension involves a clash between a
perspective which in a structuralist or generativist fashion zooms in on `language structure´,
independently of the fact that there might be more than one system at work, and one which
regards language-internal variation as natural and worthy of attention. The two perspectives are
not mutually exclusive, though. Both analyses are possible and complementary - but we need to
acknowledge the differences in a clear and conscious manner.
V. CONCLUSIONS Phonetic dissimilarity and categorization have been keywords throughout the various sections.
Categorization as such is of course based on relative similarity - a cohesive factor which helps us
organize a vast amount of variation into structured sets of like components - but it also involves
the creation of subsets, established as much on the basis of relative dissimilarity. Categorization
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
135
also applies to the social world. At more precise levels of abstractions than that of `a language´,
there are multiple social and lectal subsystems which together constitute `a society´ and `a
language´. In this respect I have distinguished between the role of hearer and speaker, and argued
that our receptive and productive competence of lectal varieties also plays a role in the
configuration of phoneme categories and inventories. In other words, a cognitive dialectology -
including a cognitive phonology - may well serve not only to mediate between `language´ and
`society´ but also to spell out in full the consequences of a truly multi-faceted approach to
phonetic variation.
I have also stressed the difference in perspective between expert analysis and folk
perception in phonemic description, and argued that the distinction is useful when theoretical
models face linguistic facts. Finally, I have examined the relative adequacy of the radial category
model and the network model and concluded that the network model seems to present a number
of advantages over the radial category model.
NOTES 1. This paper is associated with the research project HUM2005-08221-CO2-01. 2. E.g. the generativist and structuralist conceptions of language as a system (competence and langue, respectively) which is analysable independently of social and contextual factors. 3. For the importance of distributed cognition and the distinction between expert analysis and folk perception, cf. section IV.3. 4. Note that I intentionally use the term `dialect´, and not `language´: the specific nature of such low-level schemas varies considerably from one language-internal variety to another. This is one of the reasons why it is impossible for an average (adult) speaker to imitate an accent to perfection. 5. I am grateful to Raphael Berthele for introducing me to the `kiki´ and the `booba´ in his intervention on folk perception and phonosymbolism in the Theme Session Lectal Variation and the Categorization of Lectal Varieties in Cognitive Linguistics, ICLC9, Seoul. In the original experiment, Köhler (1929) called the stimuli `takete´ and `baluma´. 6. Ablaut of course serves the same differentiating purpose. In the case of English <swim, swam, swum>, the combination of three maximally distinct variants (close front i, open a, close back u) renders paradigmatic variation less ambiguous. The use of specific combinations of phonemes or morphemes in processes of derivation and declension is in this sense not entirely unmotivated. An interesting case is that of the terms <starboard and <larboard>. Both word-forms used to denote the left and right side of a ship, respectively. The terms effectively cued
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
136
both general categorization (retention of the shared element <board>) and subcategorization (addition of different pre-modifying elements). However, (or so the anectodal story goes; cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_(nautical)) from an acoustic-perceptual perspective, when implemented under harsh climatic conditions at sea, the terms were not distinctive enough - and larboard was gradually replaced by <port>. 7. It is interesting to note that the processes at work are basically the same ones as in fortitions and in general mechanisms of categorization; the difference lies in the application. 8. After Labov’s (cf. Labov, 1972) initial study on Martha’s Vineyard, he left the topic of how speech features relate to social identities and social values somewhat behind to concentrate on his `attention paid to speech´ model. By drawing attention away from situational contextual factors he aimed at eliciting speaker’s vernacular, the assumption being that speech is always monitored to context. 9. When Lambert et al (1960) undertook the task of proving that we primarily evaluate speakers on the basis of their group membership rather than on the individually-based characteristics of their voice (testing in reality the existence of a group-related link between linguistic and social stereotypes), awareness also played a major role. The matched-guise technique was implemented to show that the same (bilingual) speaker was rated quite differently according to the language he or she spoke. The subjects tested thus ignored the fact that they were attributing different sets of group-related psychological attributes to one and the same person in each case and not to different individuals. A panel of judges even rated their own speech variety (French Canadian) as inferior with respect to the more prestigious variety tested (English Canadian) –a result which in all likelihood would not have been obtained if the researchers had implemented direct methods of elicitation. 10. It should be noted that Eckert’s reasoning is in line with a variety of models on style shifting opting for approaches which assign a more active role to the speaker. Instead of merely adapting himself lectally to the circumstances of a given situation, a speaker may create personae (Coupland, 2001) or engage in proactive identity construction (Walfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998).
11. It is important to note that the perspective adopted, while still category-internal, does not depict the structure of a phonemic category, but rather language-internal variation. I do not wish to argue, in this respect, that lectal varieties are schematic with respect to the features they are composed of. Just as a category such as BIRD cannot be said to be schematic with respect to features such as eggs, wings, or feathers but rather to members such as robins or penguins, a lectal category such as British English is schematic with respect to Glaswegian or Liverpudlian, but not in a direct way with respect to phonetic features: the features in question point metonymically to a lectal category. Any schematization involved (e.g. from linguistic stereotype to token) is achieved by way of such mechanisms. REFERENCES Aitchison, J. (1991). Language change: Progress or decay?. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In M.l Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.),
Theoretical mrphology. Approaches to modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 119-142.
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
137
Bybee, J. (1999). Usage-based phonology. In M. Darnell et al. (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1: General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 211-242.
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, N. ( 2001). Language, situation, and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in
sociolinguistics. In Penelope Eckert and John. R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-210.
Eckert, P. (2004). The meaning of style. Online document:
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/salsaproceedings/salsa11/SALSA11papers/eckert.pdf
Geeraerts, D. ( 1997). Diachronic prototype semantics A contribution to historical lexicology.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geeraerts, D. ( 2001). On measuring lexical convergence. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.),
Linguagem e cognição. Braga: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, pp. 51-61. Geeraerts, D. ( 2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. In F. Ruiz
de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and inter- disciplinary interaction, Cognitive Linguistics Research 32. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163-190.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation:
Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The
next decade and beyond. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 13-48.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language
and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V.
Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press, pp. 35-83.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.),
Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 350-377. Kristiansen, G. (2001). Social and linguistic stereotyping: A cognitive approach to accents.
Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 9, 129-145.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
138
Kristiansen, G. (2003). How to do things with allophones: Linguistic stereotypes as cognitive reference points in social cognition. In: R. Dirven et al. (Es.), Cognitive models in language and thought. Ideology, metaphors and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics Research 24. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69-120.
Kristiansen, G. (forthcoming a). Style-shifting and shifting styles. A socio-cognitive approach
to lectal variation. In: G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kristiansen, G. (forthcoming b). Idealized cultural models: The group as a variable in the
development of cognitive schemata. In: R. M. Frank et al. (Eds.), Body, language, and mind Vol. 2: Cultural situatedness. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern
psychology. 2nd. Ed. New York: Liveright. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions
to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 44-51. Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in
cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 127-161. Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mompeán, J. A. (2004). Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’
classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(4), 429-469. Nathan, G. S. (1986). Phonemes as mental categories. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic
Society, 12, 212-223. Nathan, G. S. (1994). How the phoneme inventory gets its shape: Cognitive grammar’s view
of phonological systems. Rivista di Linguistica, 6, 275-287. Nathan, G. S. (1996). Steps towards a cognitive phonology. In B. Hurch & R. Rhodes (Eds.),
Natural phonology: The state of the art. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107-120.
Nathan, G. S. (1999). What functionalists can learn from formalists in phonology. In M.
Darnell et al. (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1: General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 305-327.
Towards a Usage-Based Cognitive Phonology
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
139
Niedzielski, N., & Preston, D. (2000). Folk linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nunberg, G. (1978). The Pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Linguistics Club. Nuyts, J. (2005). Brothers in arms? On the relations between Cognitive and Functional
Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, Cognitive Linguistics Research 32. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69-100.
Orton, H., Sanderson, S., & Widdowson, J. (Eds.) (1978). The linguistic atlas of England.
London: Croom Helm. Purnell, T., Idsardi, W. J., & Baugh, J. (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on
American English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 10-30.
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose
mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89-130. Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture. 3(3),
187-206. Stampe, D. (1979). A dissertation on natural phonology. New York: Garland Publishing. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47.
Taylor, J. R. (1990). Schemas, prototypes, and models: In search of the unity of the sign. In S.
L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge, pp. 521-534.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd. edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuggy, D. ( 1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273-290. van Bezooijen, R., & Gooskens, Ch. (1999). Identification of language varieties. The
contribution of different linguistic levels. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 31-48.
Werner, H. (1934). L’unité des sens. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, 31,
190-205.
Gitte Kristiansen
© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 6 (2), 2006, pp. 107-140
140
Werner, H. (1957). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: International Universities Press.
Werner, H., & Wapner, S. (1952). Toward a general theory of perception. Psychological
Review, 59: 324-38. Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. ( 1998) American English: Dialects and variation.
Oxford: Blackwell.